Rich's area - Is it time to drop the 3-man officiating crew?

[SC Official]

Adding a third official for just the postseason when the entire regular season is 2-p is just nonsensical. Just goes to show you that the ones making those decisions aren't officials.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by SC Official

Adding a third official for just the postseason when the entire regular season is 2-p is just nonsensical. Just goes to show you that the ones making those decisions aren't officials.

Coaches and school principals.

[ilyazhito]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Like any good partner, I've got your back:

Rich:

I assign for 24 high schools. I can tell you what would happen if we went back to 2-person crews.

(1) I would immediately lose all the better officials. They would work for conferences who hired 3-person crews.

(2) Physical play would increase and off-ball contact would lose the set of eyes a third official provides.

(3) You'd lose a lot of experienced people. I know a lot of experienced officials with good resumes who would retire before going back to 2-person mechanics.

I am old enough now to say I've officiated the Big 8 when 2-person crews were hired. In fast paced games, especially boys games, officiating was mostly running up and down the floor trying to keep up with play. Plays were missed, officials would have to guess occasionally rather than see and know what happened, and if there was physical or off-ball play? Good luck. Rebounds on a jump shot? One official with the shooter and defender and the other with 8 players to watch.

The game has changed in the last decade and even moreso over the 32 years I've been officiating.

Finally, counting the number of whistles each official blows shows that the writer has no concept of primary areas of coverage and what it means to not reach all over the floor to blow the whistle. I have gone entire halves not calling a single foul. It is a sign of a disciplined official to not feel he or she needs to reach just because the previous X whistles came from crewmates. We have primary and secondary areas of coverage and analysis has proved that officials get plays wrong when reaching out of those areas.

Finally, how are younger and newer officials supposed to learn how to work 3-person or even break into the varsity level if they don't get opportunities? Sadly, the coach quoted in the article seems to care only about his games, this year. Those of us who assign are seeing our officiating pools shrink and age. And in response, we see commentary that older officials who may have lost a step should be weeded out - and many of these people are the ones who have a ton of experience who can help mentor and teach the next generation of officials.

The solution to our shortages is not going backwards. The solution is to figure out why a majority of officials quit after 2-3 years and make it so they dont.

+1! I agree with all these points wholeheartedly. In my experience, 3 person is better for off-ball coverage and dealing with physical play, and overall game management than 2 person. Perhaps men's league games would be a better experience for everyone if they used 3 officials instead of 2. I would add that not only does 3 man need to be preserved in varsity games, it also needs to be expanded to the JV level, for the sake of development of officials.

BillyMac, from reading your posts about CIAC, they seem to have their heads stuck up their posteriors when it comes to officiating. If officials were somehow represented on the CIAC executive board, such as through an officials committee, we wouldn't have the asinine practice of using 2-person the entire regular season, then going to 3 for the playoffs with no additional training for officials assigned to those games. Maybe officials who work 3-person would be able to testify to the advantages of 3-person before such a committee, and the committee could then report on those findings to the CIAC.

Even the AIA (Arizona Interscholastic Association), which had 2-person exclusively in basketball games during the regular season up until now, has now (as of the 2018-19 season) allowed 3-person to be used in the regular season and postseason under its new commissioner, Brian Gessner, a former official himself.

If there was an officiating presence in the CIAC, officials might be able to persuade the others that 3 person is necessary for risk minimization and safe play in basketball, and we would start seeing more consistent use of 3-person, with officials not having to (illegally) join Boards in other states or try to jump ahead to college just to work 3-person.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

If there was an officiating presence in the CIAC, officials might be able to persuade the others that 3 person is necessary for risk minimization and safe play in basketball, and we would start seeing more consistent use of 3-person

Officials do have a presence on the CIAC, the CIAC Officials’ Association: Mission Statement: The CIAC Officials’ Association exists to work in concert with school administrators, athletic directors, coaches and the CIAC to advance the best interest of high school athletics, serve the betterment of all member officials and their respective organizations, promote ethical standards, sportsmanship, professionalism, and high quality officiating.

The problem is that the CIAC, as a branch of the Connecticut Association of Schools, is run by principals, and principals listen to coaches, both individually, and collectively (The Connecticut High School Coaches Association), and the most successful and influential basketball coaches don't want three person, and since that keeps costs down, the principals see no need to go three person.

If the coaches wanted it, it wouldn't happen right away (finances), but it would eventually happen, but as of now, they don't want it.

[ilyazhito]

The question is, does CIAC listen to its officials association. If not, I'd say that officials might need to play hardball for the next set of contracts. Since all HS basketball in CT is IAABO, CIAC coaches won't be able to use non-IAABO boards to hold down costs if IAABO boards refuse to provide service without 3-person games.

If not an immediate mandate of all 3 person, at least say to schools "We will provide 3-person crews to you on at least (5) home dates for each gender (5 boys dates and 5 girls dates). You choose the dates. If you don't choose the dates, we will." This is how FL implemented 3-person.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

I'd say that officials might need to play hardball for the next set of contracts.

No fee negotiations, our annual fee increase is the same as the average annual increase in teacher's salaries across the entire state. No more annual negotiations in smoke filled back rooms.

Three man is non issue for most coaches, and, thus, for most principals, and frankly, officials aren't ready to break out their pitchforks and torches regarding such.

[ilyazhito]

In WI, I'd say keep 3-man, and for CT, and any other retrograde 2-man places, negotiate (or strike, if negotiations don't work) for 3 man. Schools would rather have 3-man than 0-man .

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

(or strike)

Off topic. Over the years we have occasionally discussed not working games for certain schools (payment issues, safety issues, security issues, fan control, unsporting issues, etc.) but have been told by attorneys that this would break our contract with the CIAC, and put us in serious legal jeopardy.

[LRZ]

The legal issue would be: who breached the contract first? Did CIAC breach first by not meeting its contractual obligations to provide safety and security, payment, etc.?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Off topic. Over the years we have occasionally discussed not working games for certain schools (payment issues, safety issues, security issues, fan control, unsporting issues, etc.) but have been told by attorneys that this would break our contract with the CIAC, and put us in serious legal jeopardy.

That's one thing I like about the assigning structure here. We are all ICs and associations have no official role in assigning games. If we want to come together and not accept games in a particular conference, we can do that without any issues.

Now, there will be officials who will crawl over our backs to take those slots and the conferemce will nees to decide if the quality of those people are OK with them long-term.

At some point we need to stop with the "for the kids" bullshit and ask ourselves if the lack of increases we have accepted would've been acceptable to teachers, principals, and superintendents. In my area some conferences have raised pay about 10% over 20 years. How many teachers, principals, and superintendents would accept that cause it's "for the kids?"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by LRZ

The legal issue would be: who breached the contract first? Did CIAC breach first by not meeting its contractual obligations to provide safety and security, payment, etc.?

The most common problem is timely payment. We complain to the CIAC, they put pressure on the school, it gets better for a year, or so, and then the problem resurfaces. Rinse and repeat.

I once received a check in July after I made several complaints to both the school and my assigner, for a game worked in January. I can almost guarantee that if I didn't squeak the wheel, I would never have received payment for that game.

Almost all of our payment issues come from one school system (several high schools). Pay vouchers move from school site directors, to a system wide athletic director, to city hall, where the check is processed and mailed. Too many middlemen, too much of a paper trail. If this one school system moved to Arbiter Pay, most of our payment problems would be resolved.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Rich

... ask ourselves if the lack of increases we have accepted would've been acceptable to teachers, principals, and superintendents. In my area some conferences have raised pay about 10% over 20 years. How many teachers, principals, and superintendents would accept that ...

Problem solved in Connecticut (Varsity Fee: $97.17; Sub Varsity Fee: $63.05).

Originally Posted by BillyMac

No fee negotiations, our annual fee increase is the same as the average annual increase in teacher's salaries across the entire state. No more annual negotiations in smoke filled back rooms.

[ilyazhito]

Why do schools cry poor about 3-person then? If they can afford to pay 2 officials over 90 dollars each, there is no reason that they cannot pay 60 dollars each to a 3-person crew. $65 would be around the median of the varsity scale, assuming that there would be regular raises (The equivalent pay for 3-person JV crews would be $41). Thus, there is no reason for schools to cry poor, if they just divide the money 3 ways rather than 2.

In MA, 3-person crews are allowed to be paid up to 85% of the 2-person rate. In FL, 3-person crews are paid $5 less per official than 2 person, but the overall rate is lower (55 for 2-person varsity, 50 for 3-person varsity). Maybe the CIAC and the officials can find a compromise approach that allows the officials to put the best possible product on the court (3-person crews) at a rate that is affordable to everyone

[Rich]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

Why do schools cry poor about 3-person then? If they can afford to pay 2 officials over 90 dollars each, there is no reason that they cannot pay 60 dollars each to a 3-person crew. $62 would be on the lower range of the varsity scale, but still an acceptable rate of pay for officials, assuming that there would be regular raises (The equivalent pay for 3-person JV crews would be $41). Thus, there is no reason for schools to cry poor, if they just divide the money 3 ways rather than 2.

No, no, 100 times no.

Officials shouldn't pay for adding a third official. That's just a terrible, umsustainable idea.

When my conference that I hire went to 3-person a few years ago, we paid the officials the exact same amount the 2 officials got the year before.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

Why do schools cry poor about 3-person then?

Here in Connecticut, they don't, the main problem in Connecticut is that coaches individually, and collectively, do not want three officials. If they did then there may be some financial issues down the line to deal with, but we'll never get to that point until coaches want a three person game.